Disseminated on behalf of Surge Battery Metals Inc.
Electric vehicles (EVs), energy storage systems (BESS), and clean energy technologies depend heavily on lithium. Yet even with fast-rising demand, the United States still produces far less lithium than it needs.
In 2024, U.S. production reached only about 25,000 tonnes of lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) – roughly 2% of global supply, which totaled around 1.2 million tonnes. That output is enough for only about 158,000 Tesla Model 3 battery packs per year.
The gap between national demand and domestic production keeps widening. Most lithium used in the U.S. comes from imports, mainly from Chile, Australia, and China. This dependency exposes the country to supply disruptions, trade restrictions, and price volatility. If imports are interrupted, the U.S. battery and EV industries could face serious setbacks.
Growing Demand Creates a Structural Deficit
Global demand for lithium is growing quickly. Analysts expect it to quadruple by 2030 as more countries adopt EVs and build large-scale battery storage.
According to Katusa Research (2025), global lithium demand is projected to climb from 1.04 million tonnes in 2024 to 3.56 million tonnes by 2035 — a 3.5× increase. About 83% of that demand will come from EV batteries, while energy storage will account for another 11%.
Source: Katusa Research
Per the International Energy Agency, the U.S. alone may need over 625,000 tonnes of LCE per year by 2030, compared with only a small fraction produced domestically today.
Building new mines takes time – often 10 to 15 years from exploration to commercial production. This long timeline makes it difficult to ramp up supply fast enough to meet demand. Therefore, a lasting shortage is forming. If the U.S. does not accelerate new projects soon, it may depend on imports for decades.
Each EV battery pack uses large amounts of lithium. On average, an EV requires about 60 kilograms of LCE – or 8 to 10 kilograms per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of battery capacity. As automakers build more gigafactories, that adds up quickly.
Katusa’s data also shows that global EV sales jumped from 2 million in 2020 to 11 million in 2024, a 450% surge — and could exceed 60 million units per year by 2040, more than half of all cars sold globally.
Source: Katusa Research
The U.S. is expected to have 440 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of battery manufacturing capacity by 2025 and more than 1,000 GWh by 2030. That growth alone could double or triple national lithium demand.
Introducing the Nevada North Lithium Project
One company aiming to help close this gap is Surge Battery Metals. Its flagship asset, the Nevada North Lithium Project (NNLP) in Elko County, Nevada, is one of the few high-grade lithium clay deposits in the United States.
The project has an inferred resource of 11.24 million tonnes of LCE, grading about 3,010 ppm lithium, making it the highest-grade lithium clay resource in the country.
The project benefits from ideal logistics. NNLP is only 13 kilometers from major power lines and close to all-season roads. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has issued a Record of Decision and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), allowing expanded exploration over 250 acres. These factors make NNLP a leading U.S. candidate for large-scale lithium development.
How NNLP Helps Close the Supply Gap
Surge Battery Metals’ Nevada North project has features that position it well to help close America’s lithium gap. Its high grade and large resource size suggest it could deliver significant output once in production. Higher-grade deposits typically allow lower extraction costs and shorter payback periods.
Because NNLP already has key permits and environmental clearance, it may reach production faster than many early-stage peers. That speed is critical as EV demand accelerates and the U.S. targets more domestic battery manufacturing.
Just as important, NNLP supports U.S. policy goals for supply chain security. Producing lithium domestically reduces reliance on imports, helping stabilize supply and pricing for American automakers. It also supports the Inflation Reduction Act, which requires that most EV battery minerals come from North America or allied countries by 2027.
In March 2025, the U.S. government took direct equity stakes in several lithium ventures, including Lithium Americas’ Thacker Pass, signaling a strong federal commitment to reshoring critical mineral production. This policy backdrop reinforces projects like NNLP as part of a national security priority.
Strengthening NNLP Through Strategic Partnership
Moreover, Surge Battery Metals signed a joint venture letter of intent (LOI) with Evolution Mining (ASX: EVN), allowing Evolution to earn up to 32.5% ownership by funding C$10 million toward the Preliminary Feasibility Study (PFS) for the Nevada North Lithium Project (NNLP). Surge retains majority control and project management, keeping its long-term vision and stakeholder priorities front and center.
This partnership delivers big strategic value. By merging Surge’s lithium expertise and mineral rights with Evolution’s 75% stake in 880 acres of private land – and over 21,000 added acres nearby – the deal significantly increases the JV’s land position. The expanded acreage boosts the overall exploration area and brings in mineral rights in key southern zones, possible clay unit extensions to the north, and territory in historic mining districts and key drainage areas.
Importantly, Evolution’s staged funding speeds up completion of the PFS and helps NNLP reach development milestones while lowering capital risk for Surge shareholders. If Evolution completes its full commitment, it will own 32.5% of the JV, but Surge remains the lead partner. This setup means Surge still directs the project, while using Evolution’s operations know-how and resources. With a larger land package and a joint operating committee, NNLP is well on its way to Tier 1 status and is strengthening its spot in North America’s battery metals supply chain – vital for clean energy and EV growth.
Like any mining venture, NNLP faces challenges. Lithium prices fell nearly 90% from their 2022 peak, but from June to September 2025, they rebounded 24%, showing early signs of recovery.
This cyclical pattern reflects Katusa’s “cost floor” concept — production costs in China and Australia now average around $5,000–6,000 per tonne LCE, while South American and U.S. projects need about $8,000/t to stay profitable. If prices fall near those levels, high-cost mines pause output, tightening supply again and stabilizing prices.
Another factor is resource expansion. NNLP’s current resource is inferred, but the company expects to complete its current drilling program at NNLP by the end of October 2025. Once the results are released, the lithium resource will be upgraded from Inferred to Indicated and Measured categories. This step will strengthen confidence in the deposit’s scale and quality, supporting the upcoming Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS).
Permitting and community engagement also remain important; even in a mining-friendly state like Nevada, water use and land reclamation practices must meet strict environmental standards.
Surge Battery Metals has emphasized sustainable practices, including water recycling and progressive site reclamation, as part of its exploration and development plan.
Competition is growing, too. Lithium projects across South America, Australia, and Canada are advancing quickly. Still, Nevada’s combination of stable governance, established mining laws, and proximity to major battery plants gives U.S. projects like NNLP a strong advantage.
A National View: U.S. Lithium Resources and Reserves
The U.S. is home to some of the world’s largest lithium reserves, but it still underdevelops them. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, global lithium reserves total around 21 million tonnes, with the U.S. holding roughly 12%. Nevada alone hosts the country’s biggest lithium resources, concentrated in the Thacker Pass region and the northern claystone belts – where NNLP is located.
Unlocking these resources is vital. Every new project that moves forward strengthens the domestic supply chain and supports national goals to lead in clean energy technology.
Surge Battery Metals plans to continue advancing NNLP through new drilling campaigns and metallurgical studies in 2025. These programs aim to expand and upgrade resources, optimize extraction processes, and confirm the potential to produce battery-grade lithium carbonate with 99.9% purity. The company is also evaluating potential offtake partnerships with battery and automotive manufacturers.
Analysts and investors will be watching for:
Updated resource estimates and grade expansion
Progress toward pre-feasibility studies
Partnerships or funding deals with strategic investors
Regulatory updates supporting U.S. critical mineral development
Positive results in these areas could accelerate NNLP’s move toward construction and help it become one of the first next-generation lithium clay projects to enter U.S. production.
Powering the U.S. Energy Future
The U.S. faces a widening gap between lithium supply and demand that could slow its clean-energy transition. Katusa Research projects a 400,000-tonne global supply shortfall by 2035, roughly the world’s entire 2020 output – a deficit that could keep prices elevated long term.
Source: Katusa Research
Surge Battery Metals’ Nevada North Lithium Project provides a realistic and timely opportunity to help close that divide. With its high-grade resource, strong economics, strategic location, and environmental focus, NNLP could play a central role in building a stable, self-sufficient lithium supply for the United States.
As the nation races to electrify transportation and decarbonize energy, projects like NNLP will be critical. They are not only about producing lithium – they are about powering the next chapter of American industry and ensuring that the clean-energy future is built on secure, sustainable ground.
New Era Publishing Inc. and/or CarbonCredits.com (“We” or “Us”) are not securities dealers or brokers, investment advisers, or financial advisers, and you should not rely on the information herein as investment advice. Surge Battery Metals Inc. (“Company”) made a one-time payment of $50,000 to provide marketing services for a term of two months. None of the owners, members, directors, or employees of New Era Publishing Inc. and/or CarbonCredits.com currently hold, or have any beneficial ownership in, any shares, stocks, or options of the companies mentioned.
This article is informational only and is solely for use by prospective investors in determining whether to seek additional information. It does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. Examples that we provide of share price increases pertaining to a particular issuer from one referenced date to another represent arbitrarily chosen time periods and are no indication whatsoever of future stock prices for that issuer and are of no predictive value.
Our stock profiles are intended to highlight certain companies for your further investigation; they are not stock recommendations or an offer or sale of the referenced securities. The securities issued by the companies we profile should be considered high-risk; if you do invest despite these warnings, you may lose your entire investment. Please do your own research before investing, including reviewing the companies’ SEDAR+ and SEC filings, press releases, and risk disclosures.
It is our policy that information contained in this profile was provided by the company, extracted from SEDAR+ and SEC filings, company websites, and other publicly available sources. We believe the sources and information are accurate and reliable but we cannot guarantee them.
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT AND FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION
Certain statements contained in this news release may constitute “forward-looking information” within the meaning of applicable securities laws. Forward-looking information generally can be identified by words such as “anticipate,” “expect,” “estimate,” “forecast,” “plan,” and similar expressions suggesting future outcomes or events. Forward-looking information is based on current expectations of management; however, it is subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated.
These factors include, without limitation, statements relating to the Company’s exploration and development plans, the potential of its mineral projects, financing activities, regulatory approvals, market conditions, and future objectives. Forward-looking information involves numerous risks and uncertainties and actual results might differ materially from results suggested in any forward-looking information. These risks and uncertainties include, among other things, market volatility, the state of financial markets for the Company’s securities, fluctuations in commodity prices, operational challenges, and changes in business plans.
Forward-looking information is based on several key expectations and assumptions, including, without limitation, that the Company will continue with its stated business objectives and will be able to raise additional capital as required. Although management of the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated, or intended.
There can be no assurance that such forward-looking information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. Additional information about risks and uncertainties is contained in the Company’s management’s discussion and analysis and annual information form for the year ended December 31, 2024, copies of which are available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.
The forward-looking information contained herein is expressly qualified in its entirety by this cautionary statement. Forward-looking information reflects management’s current beliefs and is based on information currently available to the Company. The forward-looking information is made as of the date of this news release, and the Company assumes no obligation to update or revise such information to reflect new events or circumstances except as may be required by applicable law.
For more information on the Company, investors should review the Company’s continuous disclosure filings available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.
Disclosure: Owners, members, directors, and employees of carboncredits.com have/may have stock or option positions in any of the companies mentioned: None.
Carboncredits.com receives compensation for this publication and has a business relationship with any company whose stock(s) is/are mentioned in this article.
Additional disclosure: This communication serves the sole purpose of adding value to the research process and is for information only. Please do your own due diligence. Every investment in securities mentioned in publications of carboncredits.com involves risks that could lead to a total loss of the invested capital.
For most businesses, the emissions that matter most sit outside their own walls. Scope 3 emissions, everything generated across your value chain, from the suppliers who make your inputs to the customers who use your products, typically make up the majority of a company’s total carbon footprint. Under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), those value-chain emissions now have to be measured and disclosed with a rigour that spend-based estimates alone struggle to satisfy. This guide sets out how to improve Scope 3 data accuracy for CSRD: the calculation methods open to you, how to move from estimates to verified supplier data, and how to govern that data so it holds up to audit.
A carbon credit is a commitment that extends well into the future. The tonne of CO₂ compensated for today from a nature-based carbon project must remain out of the atmosphere for good, which means the forest behind the credit has to remain standing long after the transaction is complete. For any buyer, this raises a defining question: What ensures that the forest endures?
What replaced the cheap REDD credit on the boardroom slide deck, and why procurement is leading the rewrite.
Three years ago, a corporate slide showing a portfolio of cheap REDD+ credits could carry a board meeting. The number was big, the price was low, and the press release wrote itself. Today, that same slide gets sent back with questions. The questions are uncomfortable, the answers are unclear, and your general counsel is suddenly in the room.
Conventional carbon offsets are not dead. The voluntary carbon market retired 202 million tonnes in 2025, and the Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing survey published in January 2026 confirmed that interest from corporate buyers remains substantial. What changed is the credibility threshold. The integrity floor has risen, the disclosure scrutiny has tightened, and the buyer profile has shifted. This article tracks what changed, what sophisticated buyers now ask before signing, and what serious corporates are putting on the board slide instead.
What boards used to buy, and why it stopped working
The 2020 to 2022 model was simple: buy a large tranche of avoidance credits at low single-digit prices, retire them against the company footprint, announce the carbon-neutral claim, and move on. Most of those credits came from REDD+ projects, renewable energy installations in countries where the renewable energy was already economic, or methane projects with thin documentation.
Several things broke that model. Academic research published in 2023, including a widely cited Science paper, found that the majority of REDD+ credits issued under the most common methodologies did not represent additional reductions when tested against rigorous counterfactuals. The Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative published its Claims Code of Practice, which sets requirements for what companies can credibly claim from credit use. The European Union finalised its Green Claims Directive, restricting how companies can describe products as climate-neutral. France’s Décret 2022-539 already restricts carbon neutrality advertising. California’s AB 1305 imposes disclosure requirements on any company making net-zero or carbon-neutral claims while doing business in the state.
The collective effect: the cheap credit no longer buys the announcement, and the announcement now carries litigation risk.
The integrity reset: ICVCM, VCMI, and what changed
The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market published the Core Carbon Principles in 2023 and began assessing methodologies against them in 2024. The first methodologies received the CCP label later that year. The point of the label is to give corporate buyers a defensible quality screen they can cite in disclosure.
The Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative complements this on the demand side. Its Claims Code of Practice defines what a buyer can say (Silver, Gold, or Platinum claims, with associated requirements) based on the quality of credits used and the underlying decarbonisation strategy. Together, CCP and VCMI build a quality stack: CCP on the supply, VCMI on the claim, with the science-based target sitting underneath both.
The reset is not a ban on offsets. It is a ratchet. Credits that meet the new bar continue to clear; credits that do not, do not. The Morgan Stanley survey found that 61% of current buyers like the CCP label concept but that supply of labelled credits remains limited. That supply constraint is now visible in pricing.
What sophisticated buyers ask before they sign
The questions on the procurement scorecard have changed. A 2022 buyer might have asked about price, vintage, and project type. A 2026 buyer asks five different questions before any of those.
What does the counterfactual look like, and who validated it.
What is the permanence regime, and what is the buffer pool exposure.
What is the leakage risk, and how is it mitigated.
What rating has the project received from the independent ratings agencies (Sylvera, BeZero, Calyx Global), and what was the rationale.
What is the documentation discipline that survives an audit four years from now when the procurement team that signed the contract has moved on.
If the vendor cannot answer those five questions on a first call, the conversation ends. Conversely, if the vendor can answer them with documented specificity, the conversation often expands beyond a single transaction toward a multi-year engagement.
Where this leaves your near-term commitments
You probably have near-term commitments that pre-date the integrity reset. Public targets to be carbon neutral by 2025 or 2030. Product-level claims that ran in last year’s marketing. Disclosed reduction trajectories that assumed continued access to cheap credits.
You have three workable paths. The first is to re-baseline your strategy, replacing the most exposed credits with higher-quality alternatives and adjusting the public language to match what you can defend. The second is to shift the underlying spend from offsetting outside your value chain to investing inside your value chain, where reductions count against Scope 3 directly and the audit trail is cleaner. The third is to keep the strategy and absorb the risk, which is increasingly the most expensive option once you price in litigation, restatement, and reputational exposure.
Most serious buyers are choosing the second path. It moves the carbon spend from a compliance cost to a procurement and resilience investment, and it removes the central failure point of the legacy model: the disconnect between where the emissions occurred and where the reductions sat. Nature-based supply chain investments, structured under the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard and aligned to the SBTi FLAG Guidance, are the asset class that fits this brief. They generate inventory-grade reductions, they produce audit-grade documentation, and they survive the new claim restrictions because the carbon math sits inside the value chain that the disclosure already covers.
If you are reassessing a carbon strategy under the new integrity bar, or rebuilding a board narrative that has to survive a more skeptical audience, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help. The Dual-Value Model gives you a defensible alternative to legacy offset purchases, with the documentation and operational integration that survives the procurement scorecard and the audit. Schedule a consultation.
